Very Weird Situation Need Advice Re:Appeal

[slimchance]

Hey Guys,

I took my poly about 3 weeks ago and 1 week after, I was call by my BI and told that I passed my poly and to come in to be scheduled for my medical and conditional job offer ,One day before going in, he called me again and stated that he received the hardcopy and that I divulged something to the poly examiner that I did not reveal in the questionaire.He said to come in and fill out an explanation letter regarding the information revealed to the examiner.

Here it goes:On the background questionaire there is something in reference to domestic violence;so I check (no)
to that question .
Before he hooked me up , the exaniner asked me if I was married(yes)then he asked me if there has been any altercation between us wther it was physical or not.So I began to tell hin of a situation when I was 19 (now 34)my wife was pregnant and upset for some reason she was throwing things around the house and i was trying to calm her down and find out what was wrong with her and when she came towards me i held her hand ,brought her down next to me and continued to calm her down verbally.It was in no way an argument between us and nothing physical between us.It was so long ago I don't even remember what she was upset about.I blamed it on her pregnancy and the abnormal hormone balance because of the pregnancy.Nothing was reported or documented by anyone.

To make along story short ,the poly examiner wrote down that I physically threw to the floor.

I went in and wrote almost three pages regarding the incident.The BI submitted it to the sargeant for review.When I spoke to my BI,he stated that the sargeant said (no) in regard to me continuing the process.He continued to tell me to that I have two options,either pull myself out of the process or he will disqualify me based on the sargeants decision.I told him I want to appeal it and this caught him by surprise.I last spoke to him on 8/28 and he told me i should be receiving the thin letter this week.So far nothing,still waiting.


Any advice about the appeal process and the chances of my appeal being granted.

The police agency is Los Angeles Unfied School Police

Thank You In Advance

[mobrien316]

All you can really do is contact the department to which you are applying and ask them if they have a procedure in place to appeal.

In my opinion, this is just another example of why the polygraph sucks and shouldn't be used in pre-employment screening.

A similar example that happens is when an applicant tells their BI they smoked pot twice in high school. On the polygraph the examiner tells the subject that they "showed deception" on the question about drug use (regardless of whether they actually did or not). The examiner, trying to be "helpful", asks if it is possible that the subject used pot three or four times instead of twice. Eager to avoid failing the polygraph, the subject agrees that maybe they did use it three times instead of two, even if they only remember two times.

Afterwards, the subject is mystified when they find out they failed the polygraph because, in the opinion of the examiner, they lied about prior drug use. The examiner sees it as: "They originally said they used pot twice, but then they admitted they used it more. That's a lie. The polygraph is great."

(Okay, I added in that last sentence by the polygraph examiner, because that's how I imagine they think. But the rest is pretty accurate.) ;)

[normal1]

In many states the use of a polygraph is banned or discouraged and doesn't mess with the application process. There are so many variables when it comes to using a polygraph that I really don't see the benefit of it other than allowing the BI to look into what the examiner said was 'deception' a little deeper. That is to say, that if the applicant showed deception about smoking weed then the BI might want to look a little deeper into that specific part of the investigation. States like California shouldn't be using that stuff, they're already having a hard time filling the vacancies and they want to use a tool that makes it even more difficult to fill 'em. *shrugs*

I'll never understand it.

[BJJVad]

States like California shouldn't be using that stuff, they're already having a hard time filling the vacancies and they want to use a tool that makes it even more difficult to fill 'em. *shrugs*

So you are saying that they should over look it to fill vacancies? :eek:

I come from a department that has a laxed hiring process. I 'd rather put in the extra work then to work with some of these dopers as partners.

Polygraphs have helped DQ more dirtbags then a few of these minority issues. If the orignal poster were to make himself more clear to the exact situation that occured, he may not have a problem with being hired. He would have to check into how to make an appeal with that department.

[normal1]

So you are saying that they should over look it to fill vacancies? :eek:

I come from a department that has a laxed hiring process. I 'd rather put in the extra work then to work with some of these dopers as partners.

Polygraphs have helped DQ more dirtbags then a few of these minority issues. If the orignal poster were to make himself more clear to the exact situation that occured, he may not have a problem with being hired. He would have to check into how to make an appeal with that department.

That is absolutely NOT what I am saying. I'm saying that if they are inclined to use it, they shouldnt automatically disqualify someone because the examiner says that a person showed deception, rather the BI should (in my very unprofessional opinion) use the examiner's thoughts and comments during the investigation so that he/she may look deeper into whether the deception was a fluke or if it was real thats all.

[BJJVad]

That is absolutely NOT what I am saying. I'm saying that if they are inclined to use it, they shouldnt automatically disqualify someone because the examiner says that a person showed deception, rather the BI should (in my very unprofessional opinion) use the examiner's thoughts and comments during the investigation so that he/she may look deeper into whether the deception was a fluke or if it was real thats all.

I am very familiar with the polygraphers for the very department he is applying for. It is very possible that what he "felt" he said and what he "did" say, were completely different. Either way it does show deception. They are not DQing him. They are letting him remove his name from the background process. He would be able to reapply later.

[normal1]

Thats fair then. See for me, that would be horrible since I'm applying from across the country (not for his agency, but another agency umm.. one that was on TV in the 70s) :p